Social Menu

Executive Council discusses process used to fund churchwide mission

Members: Dioceses want to pay less, more payment accountability

By Mary Frances Schjonberg

Posted Jun 10, 2014

[Episcopal News Service – Phoenix, Arizona] The liveliest discussion during the opening session of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council June 10-12 meeting here surrounded how much money the General Convention ought to ask dioceses to contribute to the church-wide budget – and what should be done about dioceses that do not pay the full amount.

The discussion took the form of an informal poll of council members by Diocese of Ohio Bishop Mark Hollingsworth, chair of council’s Joint Standing Committee on Finances for Mission. FFM, as the committee is known, is in the process of helping to shape the draft 2016-2019 budget that council must construct by February 2015. Hollingsworth gave each council member 30 seconds to share what they are hearing around the church about the budget-funding process, and what they think ought to be done.

In the 2013-2015 triennium, dioceses are asked to contribute 19 percent of their annual income to help fund the church-wide budget. Each year’s annual giving in the three-year budget is based on a diocese’s income two years earlier, minus $120,000. The list of 2012 and 2013 diocesan commitments is here.

The Episcopal Church’s three-year budget is funded primarily by pledges from the church’s dioceses and regional mission areas. While the budget asks for 19 percent from the dioceses each year, not all dioceses give the full amount and thus the 2013-2015 projected diocesan income was forecast, in part, on giving trends. For instance, during the 2012 meeting of General Convention when its Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance (PB&F) was formulating the budget to present to convention, Episcopal Church Treasurer Kurt Barnes told the committee that the average rate of giving in 2012 had been 15 percent, even though the asking was 19 percent.

Most council members said during the polling here that they were hearing sentiment for a lower asking percentage, some sort of a progressive system with varying asking percentages based on dioceses’ varying financial resources, and accountability for dioceses that are financially able to pay the full percentage but choose not to, and for those for those dioceses that want to move towards paying the full ask.

When council members in their comments cited a number for a reduced ask, most named 15 percent. The Rev. Jim Simons from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, said he had been hearing calls for a reduction in the ask “even as low as 10 percent.”

He added that he thought “we have not done a particularly good job explaining what the funds are used for.”

Katie Sherrod, from the Diocese of Fort Worth, said Episcopalians in that diocese have seen what happens when diocesan leaders choose to separate themselves from the rest of the church. “I think the asking is a very tangible symbol of us as a body in this world,” she said, adding that the reconstituted Fort Worth diocese is paying the full ask “for the first time in a very long time.”

“We will continue to do so at whatever level this church decides but we would be concerned if it went too low because we value those church-wide programs,” Sherrod said.

Deborah Stokes of the Diocese of Southern Ohio suggested “the chief concern is about accountability — those who are not paying [the full ask] and still getting the benefits of the church.”

Marion Luckey said that although she generally hears calls for a lower asking, her Diocese of Northern Michigan pays the full 19 percent asking even though “it does use money that could be used in other areas but we feel that that’s our commitment to the church.”

Bryan Krislock, Diocese of Olympia, said a lower ask ought to be coupled with a progressive system that takes into account the high fixed costs that all diocese have, and acknowledges that some dioceses have more financial resources than others.

Bishop Stacy Sauls, the church center’s chief operating officer, voiced no opinion on the amount of the asking but said the “order of the questions” is wrong. Rather than ask what the level of the asking should be, the question “ought to be what do we want to do, how much does it cost and then how do we fairly allocate the cost of that?”

The Rev. Gay Jennings, House of Deputies president, said she agreed with the need for accountability and noted that council talked about that issue two triennia ago “and did not make much progress.” A diocese that does not pay the full asking faces no sanctions such as what happens to parishes that do not pay the full amount asked by their dioceses, for example a loss of voting rights at diocesan convention or ineligibility for diocesan grants.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who was the bishop of Nevada when she was elected presiding bishop, said Nevada has historically paid the full asking “often at great sacrifice.”

“The reality is that poorer diocese generally benefit from the church-wide programs and cannot fund those on their own,” she said. “I believe we need a missional conversation about … what can only be funded at the church-wide level and then figure out how to pay for it. I applaud the ideas of progressivity and accountability.”

Earlier during her opening remarks Jefferts Schori had said that she “still hopes that the Task Force of Reimagining the Episcopal Church will consider how, as a whole church, we can best support the local work of dioceses – and sharing resources is an essential part of that. But we need to think beyond the percentage asking from each diocese. Do current geographic boundaries make the most sense for a sustainable future for each mission unit – otherwise called diocese? Dioceses have always had these conversations about local parishes and congregations, and they make considered decisions about how to allocate personnel, financial, administrative, and building resources for the good of the whole. As a whole church, we’re being called into similarly strategic perspectives and decision-making.”

Hollingsworth concluded the discussion with a promise of more conversation to come. Having served two terms on PB&F and now chairing FFM, he said he knows that the church “cannot do the things that we aspire to do” with the revenue that is being paid in by dioceses.

He said his “greatest concern” is that the entire funding process “is not good for our soul, it is divisive.”

Opening remarks

Jefferts Schori told the council during her opening remarks that she wanted “to point to the fact that as a Church, we are making progress toward a far more interconnected and networked structure.”

“We are focusing strategically on those areas where only the church-wide structure is able to support particular local mission efforts. Support for Navajoland and the renewing dioceses are examples, so is the sustainability work in Province IX. I believe and expect those efforts toward sustainability will increase in the future. We are bound to one another, and the health and growth of each part of the body of Christ is the concern of the whole.”

Jennings told the council during her opening remarks she had been thinking about “our discourse—our habitual way of speaking about the structure of the church” and how it might color “our discussions and decisions in ways we don’t intend.”

“What well-worn patterns of discourse are shaping our thinking in well-worn ways that no longer serve us well?” she asked. “Where can we admit new meanings, healthy tension, and opportunities to promote resilience? How can we work together to expand our discourses about the church to include more people, more contexts, more perspectives and more followers of Jesus?”

Also during the opening plenary

Council welcomed the Rev. Brandon Mauia, a deacon from North Dakota, who is succeeding the Rev. Terry Star. Star died of a heart attack March 4 in his lodgings at Nashotah House Theological Seminary.

The rest of the council’s agenda

“We’ve got a number of significant issues at this meeting, all of which are related to how best to use the gifts we have as resources for church-wide mission,” said Jefferts Schori in her opening remarks.

Among those issues is the ongoing discussion about the use of the Church Center in New York. There are two executive sessions on the council’s agenda for members to discuss a new report from its Subcommittee on the Location of the Episcopal Church Center. One session was held at the end of the opening plenary June 10 and the other is scheduled as the first item on the plenary agenda for June 12. Prior to the meeting council members had to sign in to receive sealed printed materials related to the discussion; they will have to turn those materials after the meeting.

Council members will also discuss mission and budgetary issues in the Navajoland Area Mission; responses to justice issues such as human trafficking, Middle East peace, and environmental and climate concerns; hear about the church’s communion-wide covenant relationships; and will review policy in several areas.

The meeting is taking place at the Embassy Suites Phoenix Scottsdale. Council will travel to the Episcopal Church of the Nativity late in the afternoon of June 10 for Eucharist and a reception. The Rev. Susan Snook, Nativity’s rector, is a member of council. During the reception members will get a preview of Episcopal Relief & Development’s 75th Anniversary Photo Exhibition.

The council will meet in committee all day June 11. On June 12, the council meets in plenary session all day to hear committee reports and to consider resolutions.

The next day, a number of council members and staff will travel to Fort Defiance in northern Arizona to attend the annual convocation of the Navajoland Area Mission.

Some council members are tweeting from the meeting using #ExCoun062014.

The Executive Council carries out the programs and policies adopted by the General Convention, according to Canon I.4 (1)(a). The council is composed of 38 members, 20 of whom (four bishops, four priests or deacons and 12 lay people) are elected by General Convention and 18 (one clergy and one lay) by the nine provincial synods for six-year terms – plus the presiding bishop and the president of the House of Deputies.

– The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is an editor and reporter for the Episcopal News Service.

Editors’ note: This story was updated June 11, 2014, to clarify the terms “progressive system” and “accountability”.

Tags

Comments
(14)

With untold millions spent on litigation against thousands who have separated from us, and with the elimination of the Evangelism Department (among others), and the ignored General Convention mandate to transition away from 815 Second Avenue one wonders exactly what can justify the 19%. Likewise, we may have needed General Convention every 3 years in a time of limited interaction, travel, and communication, but why such an expense now? Local churches have to justify budgets and priorities, and it is increasingly the same for those who have stewardship for the General Church. Any talk of isolating or guilting dioceses who object to the current 19% asking is hardly productive and will likely be met with wider resentment and action. Considering that only about 600,000 attend TEC services on any given Sunday, we have just got to stop irritating the pews with heavy-handed ideas that seem good in a committee.

I am glad the Executive Council is finally discussing the elephant in the living room, i.e. dioceses not paying their full asking, especially those such as Texas that appear able without catastrophic hardship.

The problem is, what sanctions does one impose? If one sanction is to restrict or eliminate representation at General Convention, doesn’t that drive out dioceses that already have a tenuous relationship with the rest of the Episcopal Church?

TEC should reduce the number of dioceses within the 48 CONUS states by half. A good yardstick would be that if a diocese cannot maintain an average income of $1.5M per annum, it should be consolidated. TEC cannot afford this top-heavy structure that made sense when trains were still the way that bishops made episcopal visitations and when communications between diocese and parish were by U.S. Mail.

The scripture talks about tithes & offerings, so where did we come up with 19%. How many people in our parishes come up with even tithing so where is this money coming from? Bishop Stacy Sauls came the closest for me: 1. What do we want or need to do? 2. How much will that cost? 3. How much will that cost? And then ask the real question, How will we raise this money? Basically offerings are the basis for our support in churches so the real question is: How much will our people give for “this” vital work?
Force is NOT a part of the Gospel – LOVE is the driving force. If the people love what our church leaders suggest then the money will come. I have learned in my years of ministry that: “Money is seldom the problem, people are always the problem”. When the “ministry” is clear – the money comes.

In 1985 we made a commitment to 50/50 giving, by which we meant that if the church exists for others, and not just itself, then at least half it’s resources should be spent outside itself. Of the 50% given away, 25% was to go to the wider church. 25% was goal to which parishes were to be working and the goal for the giving of each diocese to the wider church. Some have actually accomplished that in times past. That resolution along with our commitment to the tithe for individuals, and 1% for the support of seminaries! have been affirmed any number of times over the decades.

In my diocese, if a congregation doesn’t pay its fair share (roughly 11%) of the diocesan operating budget, the congregation loses its votes at diocesan convention. Eventually, a parish that doesn’t pay is reduced to mission status — although we’ve never had to go that far. This system works well. Previously, we had a mostly-voluntary system with no teeth that resulted in many inequities.

This is how it should be at the national level. No pay, you can still play, but not to the same extent as those who do pay.

Another consequence for not paying could be lack of support resources from 815, such as for episcopal elections, which includes bishop and Standing Committee consents. If fiscal acccountability were an added facet to the consent process, it would only take one election cycle to drive that message home. Just sayin’…

After over a century of separate budgets – one for mission and one for administration – the Diocese of Texas has adopted a unitary budget. All congregations MUST pay their assessment, which includes a percentage (around 10% I think) for mission. If they don’t pay, they don’t vote at Diocesan Council. Completeliy agree with the comments about transparency and accountability made above. As long as the national church engages in partisan political activity through the DC office, there will be justifiable resistance from those who do not believe that activity is a good use of our funds. It’s like labor unions using dues for partisan activity that members oppose. The Supreme Court has freed members from being taxes for such things. I’m all for a unitary budget with a lower but mandatory mission assignment PROVIDED we carefully review what we’re spending the money for. The foot dragging about leaving 815 doesn’t inspire confidence in the pews, and the fact that the discussions at EC now are being done in secret is also disheartening. The current system isn’t working well, and so many view the 19% as a punitive tax.

I agree with those who say that program–the way we implement our mission–drives the budget, or should! And with those who say that most of us in the pews don’t really know what program–or mission–we’re paying for on the national and diocesan levels. Communication between the national church, the dioceses, and the parishes is very poor; and here, I do not just mean that the “higher ups” in the system don’t explain their programs well, but also, there is not a great deal of interest (that I can discern) in the higher-ups finding out about what’s happening in the parishes. We are, in consequence, more a congregational church than one whose hierarchy unites us. We have so many means of communication now, but it doesn’t seem to be helping us know and understand each other better!

21%,19%, not so long ago it was 16%. It’s not simply a matter of need or mission.
This is the way it really works. We figure up what we want to do. Then we figure what percent of all the diocesan budgets it will take. Then we increase that percent by whatever the budgeters guess it will take to cover what they guess the short fall will be. That way those who will pay whatever is asked cover for those who won’t pay what is asked. I would consider it a matter of the the strong carrying the weaker brother’s burdens, an act of sacrificial generosity, were it not for the fact that for the last 40 years we’ve been asked to shoulder the burden for dioceses who could carry their own load but simply refused to do so. It was the Prayer Book, then ordained women, now LBGTQ… and always complaints about the Church being too political. After years of paying whatever was asked, I voted to drop our pledge to 10%… just because I was tired of being taken advantage of. We’ve pledged 10% for several years now. We actually give more, of course, we love our Church; this year our gift will probably match the asking.
The same problem is seen in dioceses with apportionment systems. Shaming, loss of suffrage, or mission status don’t change hearts or promote generosity. It hasn’t worked in the dioceses I’ve known and I think there is even less chance any of these will work on the diocesan level.
I’m afraid we’re stuck with this stupid system until all the dioceses decide they love The Episcopal Church, too.

A reference was made to a progressive tithe to account for the overhead all dioceses have whatever their size. The counter is that small dioceses should consider merging with other dioceses; a progressive system undercuts the incentive to merge.

Are dioceses like Nevada poor because they are thinly populated? The question I would ask is why do we have to have franchises in every corner of the country? Why not allow voids where the Episcopal Church simply does not have a presence?

That’s what larger dioceses with more concentrated Episcopal populations are implying when they don’t pay the full ask: why does the national church have to provide resources for such thinly populated dioceses? It’s like bringing water to the desert, or electricity to remote areas. The value is not justified by the cost.